The next Labour leader thread

VincentHanna said:
Sorry, I missed you post.

At the Chelmsford one where I volunteered they have to have a voucher issued by doctors, a health visitor, social workers or police who have identified them as being in need

The packages were 3 days worth of food and supplies
Click to expand...

Thank you.

In which case, it seems an eminently fair system with oversight built in.
 
Terminal_Boy said:
I'm old enough to remember the Gang Of Four breaking away in 1981 and it looked a lot like this....
Click to expand...

I think most of Labour's MPs are also old enough to remember what happened to the SDP. Britain's disfunctional electoral system does not brook deviation from the two party hegemony and Labour MP's know it. They will sit tight and hope that after Corbyn crashes to the inevitable defeat in a General Election next year that he will have the grace to step down.
 
Corbyn is slowly turning Labour into the BNP. Sad.

BbQW3Tc.jpg
 
Terminal_Boy said:
Isn't the next GE in 2020?
Click to expand...

That's when it's scheduled for, currently. A lot of people think that May will call an election next year for three reasons: (1) she wants to rule considerably differently to Cameron and without an election her mandate will be continually questions, (2) most people think Labour will get hammered at an election, which leads to (3) she has a wafer-thin majority in the Commons, probably not enough to force things like her Grammar school reforms through and a election next year is likely to increase that majority to a more comfortable level.

Against this, the boundary change gerry-mandering won't come through until 2020 and she may want to hold on for that and an election is always a risk so she may decide to play safe.

Clegg's floater, the fixed term parliament act, does allow an election to be called with enough support. Corbyn has committed to supporting a vote on a new election if one is asked for (and, frankly, it'd be politically difficult for any party not to) and even if he doesn't May can get rid of the act on the normal 50% (+1) rule.
 
My main concern is Jeremy's determination to crowd-source policy now. First, it's simply unfair to put such a responsibility for detail on the shoulders of the membership. Second, without detail and a lot of competing ideas, neither constructive criticism nor blame can be apportioned for anything. Third, by not spelling out the associated risks to the membership he's fooling people into believing there are no costs to pay for their wishlists, however good the intentions -- there always are. If the party keeps losing -- he doesn't have to deliver; if it ever wins by a monumental fluke, he can perform a fait accompli of all demagogues and do what he wants, either kicking the impossible demands of direct democracy into the long grass, or running the country into the ground trying to sustain his support. Not a cheerful prospect.

In fact, he would be able to stick around indefinitely since by attacking his approach the members would effectively be attacking themselves, and of course one can always recruit a bit more around the fringes to keep the pump going.

If some of Jezza's early PMQs are anything to go by, it'll be more protest and grievance on a tangent orthogonal to the voters' ears. There's a lot of emphasis on emotion, little evidence and traditional struggles; we've had this same approach from the Tories for years now -- is there any need for Labour to go down the same path and lose to those with experience? 'I want to feel something', 'here's an anecdote' and 'forget the experts' is not a sound premise for starting a revolution or running a country in a particular direction.

I disagree with the Beast of Bolsover: once the mass movement of new labour supporters, namely Momentum, discover that getting change is hard, long and tedious, just like Sanders' backers in America, and lose an election or two, it'll start to fragment and turn on its only meaningful routes and means to power. It may be effective at getting rid of dissenting MPs, but at the same time even having 1000 members per constituency won't be enough to dent many targets or Scotland. Taking on the Tories also needs cash, as other populists often discover. Where is it going to come from if Labour scares off its largest backers, including perhaps a union or two further down the line?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom